HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-14 Applicant Addressing Concerns 194 Wiwaole St. Hilo, HI 96720
� (sob) 333-3393
PLANNING
info@landplanninghawaii.com
HAWAII LLC
June 14, 2021
Mr. Michael Vitousek, Chairman
And Leeward Planning Commissioners
Planning Commissioners:
Subject: Special Management Area Use Application (SMA 21-000078)
Applicant: Jekaterina Mysin
Kailua-Kona,North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-020: 066
In preparation for the upcoming hearing on the subject SMA application we would like to
circulate a copy of the current conceptual site plan. This plan is the same as that submitted to the
Commission on 5-17-21, however this version is easier to read since topographic contour lines
are not shown. Also attached please find renders of the proposed structure with an aesthetic that
better conforms to the character of the area.
Please find the following review of concerns voiced by some members of the public regarding
the proposed project. In evaluating the project with respect to the Special Management
Objectives, please consider the criteria established in Planning Commission Rule 9-1 1(e) and
Chapter 205A HRS. The relationship to these criteria and objectives is reviewed in depth in the
permit application package and Planning Department Recommendation Report.
Parking:
Parking along Ali'i Drive is a public concern. We do regret that the proposed 20-foot-wide
driveway will eliminate some on-street parking. However, it is within the landowner's property
rights to have access to the property from the County right-of-way and the landowner will ensure
that the driveway conforms to all Hawai'i County Codes. Analysis of aerial imagery (Google) of
19 dates between 2001 and 2019 of the subject property frontage showed that on 8 dates (fewer
than half)a car parked along the Ali'i Drive frontage of the subject property. Two of those 8
dates showed two cars parked along the frontage.North of the subject property adjacent to the
Ali'i Point tennis courts, there appears to be approximately 200 feet of frontage where parking
would continue to be available. Based on this the project is not anticipated to diminish the
public's ability to access the adjacent shoreline access path.
Traffic:
We also understand there are concerns over the potential for the access gate to the property to
cause traffic jams and safety concerns while drivers wait for the gate to open so that they can
enter the driveway. The gate has been removed from the proposed plans.
Ocean Ecology & Environmental Impacts:
Relating to potential cumulative impacts from the project on the SMA and proposed mitigations:
The proposed project will be developed consistent with its existing zoning and other
14 2331
development in the area. The project will connect to the County sewer system and will control
and properly dispose of any site generated runoff: Thus,there should be no long-term effects to
coastal water quality due to the proposed project.
Potential short-term impacts to water quality will be addressed by construction industry standard
Best Management.Practices to control runoff from the subject property and will be detailed in the
building permitting package.
Tsunami 1 Coastal Hazards:
Some public testimony has expressed concern regarding evacuation during a possible tsunami.
This is an understandable concern and something that residents and visitors should be made
aware of. Perhaps part of the issue lies in the overreliance on vehicles and roads for tsunami
evacuation. A recent study entitled Pedestrian evacuation modeling to reduce vehicle use for
distant tsunami evacuations in Hawai'i (Wood et al., 2019) evaluated tsunami evacuation times
for areas on Oahu and concluded "Recommended travel mode,could vary depending on
evacuation zone. Pedestrian evacuations at a reasonable speed and within a reasonable,amount
of'time are possible for 98%of'the residents in the standard evacuation zone, but only 76%of
those in the extreme evacuation zone. This suggests effective education could reduce traffic
issues for a standard evacuation, but vehicle use is likely in certain areas during an extreme
evacuation."
The Draft Hawaii County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (May 2020) evaluated the potential
impacts of tsunamis on Hawai'i County. The Risk Assessment Results indicate that for North
Kona a low percentage of the population (4.47%or 1,967) is exposed to tsunami hazard with a
love probability factor(see attached). However, the issue of tsunami evacuation is much larger
than this permit application and will require probabilistic studies encompassing Ali'i Drive and
education of the public regarding the proper response to tsunami watches and warnings. Further,
the potential impact from the proposed six-unit development on tsunami evacuation is not
anticipated to be significant.
Scenic )Resources & Height:
One of the main concerns that was expressed in the opposing testimony related to design of the
building. Much of the testimony expressed that the modern aesthetics of the proposed building
did not conform to the"feel"of the surrounding neighborhood. Please review the attached
rendering of a new aesthetic that we feel conforms more to the existing development in the area.
We have also heard concerns over the height of the structure. The proposed plans conform to the
height restrictions of the Hawaii County Zoning Code. Also, several other comparably high,
multi-story condos exist on Ali'i Drive within a half mile distance of the subject property. These
include the Kona by the Sea, Kona Bali Kai, Banyan"Free and Hale Pohaku condominium
complexes.
Identified scenic resources will not be impacted by the proposed project as detailed in the
application package. and Planning Department Recommendation Report. Further, views toward
the shoreline from Ali'i Drive are already blocked 1?\ the condominium located makai of the
proposed project site.
Grubbing and Grading:
Some public testimony expressed concerns regarding an incident that occurred on May Yd
involving minor excavation on the property. Regrettably. an engineering firm assisting with the
project mistakenly thought they had appropriate clearances to excavate soil test pits on the
property. Notice was immediately given to stop work when this came to light and work will not
resume without all proper clearances.
Archeological Concerns:
An Archaeological Field Inspection was conducted on the subject property and was submitted to
the State Historic Preservation Division. The survey found no evidence of historic or cultural
resources requiring preservation. This finding was confirmed by SHPD by letter, stating"no
historic properties will be affected"by the proposed project. Further, if any archaeological finds
are made during construction, work will cease and only proceed after clearance from SHP❑ and
the County.
Ala Ka La Condominium:
Regarding comments in Mr. George Smith's Contested Case Petition, we believe we have settled
any potential property boundary dispute issues, as has been confirmed by Mr. Smith. The
remaining concern noted by Mr. Smith pertains to a outcrop of lava rock along the western
property boundary and potential impacts to infrastructure on the Ala Ka La property due to the
proposed development. The applicant recognizes their responsibility to provide lateral support at
the property boundary. Any potential issues with the proposed pool and spa designs will be
addressed by sound engineering at the appropriate permitting phase of the project.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
JOHN PIPAN
Planning Administrator
Enclosures
Conceptual Site Plan, Site Renders, Tsunami Hazard Assessment Table
Copy—Jekaterina Mysin
Fll :"I
\x MH
WATER
METER
O
Lp,
T.
L)
------------
4
eM,N LU
% LU t"'.
-f,4 '-UNLBOXrS
163
NTF PI.AN
a'.
IT
■ r.
■
Conceptual Site Render--View of A]Pi Drive frontage looking West.
,d.
7.
cr
+1t
l0
i
* ,'u
Conceptual Site Render-View of boundary with Ala Ka La Condominium looking East.
County of Hawaii Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix E;Detailed Risk Assessment Results---Tsunami
RISK Aslesfasernent Rs"ft
NORTH e
HAMAXUA KAU NORTH HILO KOHALA NORTH KONA PUNA 1 SOUTH HILO KOHALA SOUTH KONA j
Estimated Population(11 7,441 7,942 1,681 6,4W 44,049 44,350 52286 16,594 10.669
Total Numl*r of Buildings(2) 2,615 4,015 962 2,544 19,.394 19,245 19.923 10,436 3,662 82.,796
Total Number of Residential Buildings(2) 2.511 3,911 938 2,456 18,206 18,802 18.368 10,009 3.499 78,702
Total Bultding Value(Structure and cant"in$)(2) $965,000,890 $1,.153,799,589 $321,051,020 $949.266.941 $13,646,633,094 $6,306,680,548 $26,316,068,455 $7,020,085,649 $1,512,982.374 $58,191,548,568
Estimated Estmated Buirdings Exposed(2) 1 4 0 0 896 3 I'MI 692 5 2,582
Exposure Popu4Acm Exposed(4) 3 4 0 0 1,967 7 2,260 933 15 5,190
%of%puiatonExposed 0.04% 0.05% 0.00% 0,00% 4.47% 0.02% 4.32% 5.62% 0.14% 2.71%
Value Structure in$Exposed(2) 114,689 2,219.33,1 0 0 382,549,116 422,327 964,092,478 414.966,056 88103 1,765,24504
Value Contents it$Exposed(2) 57,$44 2,098644 D o 241,756,237 211,164 851,253,329 215,329,289 440.842 1,311,145,649
Value(Structure and contents in$)Exposed(2) 172,D33 4,317,778 0 0 624.304,354 633,491 1,B15,345,807 630.295,346 1.322.525 3,076.,39t,333
%of Total Value 0.02% 0.37% 0.00% 000% 4.57% 0.01% 8.90% 8,98% 0.09% 5,29%
Number of Residentia-. 1 2 0 0 813 3 794 563 5 2,181
Structures Commercial a 2 0 0 70 0 257 27 0 356
in Huard Industrial 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 7
Area(2) Agriculture 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Religion 0 0 a 0 7 0 7 2 0 16
Govamment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EducAon 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Total 1 4 0 0 896 3 1.061 592 5 2,562
Saurces
(1)2015 Census 8W Groups with ppulaton figures from American Communlly Surrey 5-yeare5tmates downloaded from Hawaii Stalewide GS Program Geospa6al Data Portal.
(2)Values based off of 2019 parcel and real property data provided by Hawaii County.
(3)209 Hawaii Tsunami Mapping Project data provided by Hawaii County.
(4)Percent of residanfial buildings exposed multiplied by tic EsBmaied Population.
Risk Rankin
KOHALA NORTHr r r . . r
Probabilfty Pmbabrity(High.,Medium,Low,None) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Probability Factor(3,2,1,0) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Impact on %Population Exposed 0.04% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 4.47% 0,02% 4.32% 5,62% 0.14% 2,71%
People Irrpard(High,Medium,Law,None) Low Low None None Low Low Low Low Low Low
Impact Factor 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Weighted Impact Factor 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3
Impact on %of Tolal Value Exposed 0.02% 0.37% 0,00% 0.00% 4.57% 0.01% 6 90% B.98% 0.09% 5.29%
Property Impact(High,Medium,Low.None) Low Low None Nacre Low Low Low Low Low Low
Impact Factor 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Weighted Impact Factor 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2
Impact on %of Total Value Damaged 0.02% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 4.57% 0.01% 5.90% 8,95% 0.09% 5 29%
Economy Impact(High,Medium,Low,None) Low Love None None Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium
Impact Factor 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 2
Weighted Impact Factor 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 2
Ranking Rmk Ranking Score 12 12 0 0 12 12 14 14 12 14
Howard Risk 11022 Low LOW Low Law Low Low Lnrr Low Low Low
TETRA TECFI
L-7